This just in. A facility housing some of these illegal parasites in New Mexico is in lock down due to a chicken pox outbreak. This is what's heading our way. Start calling your elected representatives NOW.

Another tragic loss of “potential.” We’ll never find a cure for cancer or the common cold if these Congoids keep killing off each other.

NS: Yeah, but it’s all the white Devils’ fault!

The explanation for this sort of violence used to be “the crack wars” or “the crack epidemic.” Then we were told that young blacks had seen the folly of their older brothers' way of doing business, and recoiled from such conduct. Maybe not, huh? Maybe it was just being covered up well for a time, due to LEO-MSM collusion, but there's just too much to cover up anymore. And yet, it's surely much worse than we're hearing, though lefties will doubtless claim that the violence is being exaggerated.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, fulfilling a campaign promise, has ordered city lawyers to abandon the defense of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought by five defendants in the so-called Central Park jogger case. The lawsuit will be settled for a reported $40 million. But some erroneous public impressions have been created about the case that need correcting.

The defendants were convicted in 1990 for participating, with 30 or 35 other 14- to 16-year-olds, in a series of attacks in Central Park on the evening of April 19, 1989. The convictions were based largely on the defendants' own statements to the police. By far the most serious of the assaults was the horrific, bloody rape and near-murder of a 29-year-old female jogger, who survived, but without any memory of what had happened. The defendants served prison sentences from six to 13 years.

Their convictions were vacated in 2002 when Matias Reyes, an imprisoned serial rapist and killer, volunteered that he had raped the jogger, a claim confirmed by DNA tests, and that he had done it alone, a claim resting solely on his credibility.

Three of the 'Central Park Five' at a press conference with their lawyer, center, in June. Getty Images

In the lawsuit against the city that followed, police and prosecutors honored a court request not to discuss the case publicly. The defendants—now civil plaintiffs—launched a high-powered publicity campaign that has persuaded many that they were completely innocent, that they had been coerced and fed false stories by the police, and that they have been exonerated. None of these contentions is
accurate.

• Complete innocence. The defendants were convicted not only for attacking the jogger, but for assaulting others as well. The other victims included a man beaten into unconsciousness with a pipe. No evidence contradicts these convictions. For the most part they were confirmed by the defendants and have never been specifically denied.

Two crime scenes exist relating to the attack on the jogger. This supports the theory that while the defendants did not participate in the rape, they were involved, to some degree, in a preceding and less-serious attack on the woman. They now deny any involvement in any such attack. Their original incriminating statements, while generally descriptive of what seems to have occurred at the first crime scene, lack crucial details of the second—such as the huge amount of blood, and that the jogger was found tied up in her own T-shirt.

• Coerced
stories. The defendants' current claim that they were told by police interrogators what to say is undermined by the absence, in their statements at the time, of lurid details of the second crime scene. Several teams of cops questioned 37 possible suspects and dozens of other witnesses over a period of more than two days. Even if they could have coordinated a false story—and even if they could have been foolish enough to "feed" such a story to suspects when the victim might wake up any moment to contradict it—they certainly would not have neglected to include the distinctive features of the attack in the version they allegedly coerced the defendants into using.

There is no evidence that police or prosecutors coerced
the defendants or fed them stories. Trial judge Thomas Galligan held an extensive, six-week pretrial hearing on the precise issue of whether the defendants' statements were improperly obtained. His 116-page opinion stated that with one minor exception, regarding a peripheral remark, they were not.

Four of the five defendants at the pretrial hearing made no allegation that they had been coerced or told what to say. The court rejected the fifth defendant's charges that he was coerced and fed a story. The claims by all of the defendants that confessions were extracted under police pressure came only after they consulted civil attorneys.

In 2002 Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly appointed a panel (of which I was a member) to look into this matter. The panel criticized some aspects of the handling of the case but found that no police or prosecutorial misconduct had occurred in detaining or interrogating the defendants. Similarly, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, which consented to vacating the defendants' convictions, nevertheless found that no police or prosecutorial misbehavior occurred in their detention or questioning. Then-Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau has consistently so stated, as did his office's supervisory
personnel in sworn testimony before the City Council in 2003.

• Exoneration. The 2002 court order vacating the defendants' convictions did not exonerate them. They were granted new trials, at which they could present "newly discovered evidence," consisting solely of the uncorroborated claim of a psychotic killer/rapist that he acted all by himself. This claim could then be subjected to cross examination. But the defendants had served their sentences, no trials were held, and the killer's claim was never tested.

The panel's report to Police Commissioner Kelly in 2003 suggested that it was "probable" that the defendants participated only in a preliminary "hit and run" attack on the jogger, similar to the other assaults for which they had been convicted. If that theory is correct, it seems clear that they served excessive prison terms. Others, pleading guilty to such offenses occurring on the same night, served two to three years, not six or 13.

Perhaps it is fair, though not required as a matter of law, to compensate the defendants for their extra prison time.
But some thought should also be given to the blameless police officers and assistant district attorneys who, as a result of a well-orchestrated [defamation] publicity campaign, have been subjected to public vilification, anonymous death threats and petitions calling for them to be fired.

The public outcry has been fueled by a documentary, "The Central Park Five," produced by acclaimed filmmaker Ken Burns and his daughter, Sarah. The film's genesis was her college thesis and makes no pretense of objectivity. It is a montage of interview clips of the five defendants, backed by their supporters, urging that they are innocent of all wrongdoing and that their incriminating statements were the result of police misconduct.

There is no mention of Judge Galligan's exhaustive opinion, or the lengthy hearing on which it was based, rejecting claims of official misconduct. Nor is reference made to the report of our panel; of the sworn testimony of D.A. Morgenthau's officials; of my own unused, half-day taped interview in Mr. Burns's studio; or of any other voice seriously presenting views either critical of the defendants or supportive of the police.

Mr. de Blasio has directed the payment of many millions of dollars in order to be fair to
the defendants. He should also be fair to the police and prosecutors who work for the city he leads. The document settling the case should unequivocally state the truth—that the defendants were not abused or fed false information. And the mayor should firmly acknowledge those facts himself, in public.

Mr. Armstrong is of counsel at McLaughlin & Stern. He has served as Queens County district attorney and chief counsel to the Knapp Commission investigating corruption in the New York City Police Department.

Lawyers for the mother of a Mexican teenager fatally shot by U.S. border police filed a U.S. federal civil rights lawsuit on Tuesday, calling the killing "brazen and lawless" and the latest example of agents using excessive force.

How does a wetback have his "constitutional rights" violated?

Maybe the agent should have cannibalized him after his death.

That would have been both culturally correct and historically accurate.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

No, Politico’s Josh Gerstein didn’t literally say that, but’s the upshot of what he did say. And yes, he did quote critics of the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama,” but he did so at the end of his article, after most readers will have quit reading, thus giving him plausible deniability—but not with me.

Even if President Barack Obama tests the bounds of his presidential power with the big, unilateral moves he’s promising on immigration, there may be no way to stop him.

Lawyers are debating the legality of a series of immigration-related executive actions the White House is reportedly considering, but there’s broad agreement suing the president isn’t likely to work.

“The court route: I don’t see it,” said Jan Ting, a top immigration official under President George H.W. Bush who opposes Obama’s expected moves.

Legal experts see any challenge to the expected immigration policy changes headed for the same key roadblock facing House Speaker John Boehner’s planned suit over Obamacare implementation delays: finding a way to show the injury needed to press a case in the federal courts.

“There isn’t really anyone who would be in a position to complain,” said Hiroshi Motomura, a University of California at Los Angeles law professor who favors several of the options Obama is considering.

The lack of a clear path to challenge the president’s expected moves to give more illegal immigrants work permits and relief from deportation seems certain to fuel howls from Obama critics that he’s as much an imperial president as his predecessor — who was often criticized by Obama and other Democrats for overflexing his presidential muscle.

Responding to inaction in the House on immigration reform, Obama has signaled to immigrants’ rights advocates that he plans to take significant new executive actions next month to overhaul the immigration system. They could range from reordering the priority list of deportation cases to dramatically expanding the “deferred action” program he initiated in 2012, which allows immigrants who entered the
U.S. illegally as children to apply for a two-year deportation reprieve.

That could mean allowing millions of family members of so-called DREAM-ers to get work permits, or perhaps allowing giving work permits to even broader groups, such as undocumented immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or virtually everyone who’s not considered a high priority to deport.

“This notion of extending DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] to parents, who were the ones who consciously violated the law, strikes me as ridiculous,” said Ting, now a law professor at Temple University. Obama “has defaulted on his constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the laws.”

However, other experts say most lawyers in the field believe Obama has few restrictions on his ability to decide how and when the U.S. deports immigrants.

“There is, I think, a general consensus that his authority to take executive action is fairly wide as long as it is based on executive branch authority to use prosecutorial discretion to decide how people are treated who are subject to deportation,” said Doris Meissner, Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner under President Bill Clinton.

“He’s got a continuum of options from a fairly narrow reworking of deportation priorities all the way to a new program of some kind that would allow more numbers of people to apply for work permits of some kind,” she added.

What Obama has done so far on immigration and what he’s likely to do in the future can be justified on the theory of prosecutorial discretion, the long-standing executive branch power to decide in which cases the law should be enforced, Motomura said.

[Bull. There is no such discretion regarding the nation’s immigration laws.]

“We have a system that runs on discretion. There are 11 million people in the country who in theory are not supposed to be here. Congress has funded the capability to deport maybe half a million people a year,” the professor said.

Motomura, author of “Immigration: Outside the Law,” said he sees no legal bar to expanding the deferred action program. “He could expand it to people who are closely related to those people who have been standing in line to be approved,” the professor said.

But Motomura said that doesn’t mean Obama has a completely open path — nor are there indications the president will attempt to break those boundaries.

“I think there are real constraints on him,” Motomura said. “He cannot give people a permanent immigration status. He cannot give people green cards. He cannot bypass the process … He cannot give people a path to citizenship.”

Some Republicans feel the president doesn’t have as much leeway as immigrant rights groups suggest.

“If the President may constitutionally permit fifteen per cent of the Nation’s illegal immigrant population to remain in the United States without fear of removal, why may he not do the same for fifty per cent of that population, or for all of it?” George W. Bush Justice Department officials John Yoo and Robert Delahunty wrote after Obama unveiled DACA in 2012. “The failure of an agency to perform its ordinary enforcement duties may be so unreasonable that it may be considered unconstitutional, notwithstanding limitations on its resources. The Constitution confers no express or implied power or authority not to enforce the laws.”

Boehner has complained publicly that Obama’s unilateral moves on immigration are part of a pattern of the president disregarding his legal duties. “This is about him faithfully executing the laws of our country,” Boehner said last month as he announced House plans to file a lawsuit against Obama over alleged executive power overreaches.

I thank the reader who sent his report and the associated video. The “Uhuru” movement considers genocidal black supremacist “Barack Obama” and racist Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter “sellouts,” demands “reparations” (here and here), and is organizing to murder whites and policemen of all races, like the Black Panthers and Black Liberation Army of yore, and the Nation of Islam, including its New Black Panther Party division (see also here, run in recent years by Malik Zulu Shabazz/Paris S. Lewis, and since 2013 by violent felon, Hashim Nzinga.

This raises the question: How many of the brutal, racist attacks on whites in recent years in “Killadelphia,” likely numbering in the thousands, have been committed by this group?

By A Longtime Reader

For the past two years there have been regular racially motivated attacks on white pedestrians by black mobs in Philadelphia. These attacks are committed by 100% black mobs against white people and are motivated by racial hatred. The media has been aggressively downplaying the attacks and censoring all mention of race. IF the races were reversed in these attacks they would be MAJOR nationwide media sensations. The media would be screaming “HATE CRIMES” and calling the perpetrators domestic terrorists.

We found this video from last fall of the “Uhuru” [“freedom”; its real meaning is the enslavement and murder of all whites] movement defending the racially motivated attacks. They claim the attackers are “victims” of oppression. Later in the video a woman’s voice describes a violent attack on a white police officer as “fighting back.” At the end, a black man says that blacks are justified in engaging in criminal activity against white people. His speech is spliced together with scenes of a black mobs brutally attacking a white pedestrians on the streets on Philadelphia.

Josh Korn Each time, UNRWA claims that this has never happened before.

Who would have thought? Rocket storage virginity. Infinitely replaceable.

Pol Belik three times in a row`? and everytime the unrwa tells the people they dont even know about it? dont tell us bullshit. if an organisation fraternise with the enemy, than israel has the right to treat them like an enemy and when the unrwa really dont know about it, than they are useless and should leave the region.

• Jonathan Hislop
Any United Nations schools there that don't have any rockets?!?

Ruth Gretzinger
actually guys, it's all ok. Hillary Clinton was interviewed (this morning I think) and she explained that the reason Hamas stored rockets in schools and mosques and other such places is that Gaza is small, and very densely populated. just a question of a space crunch.

and this woman might be our next president? I want to throw up.

•
Benjamin Nachbar-Krieg • Top Commenter • University of Florida
"Well where do you suggest we store our extra munitions?! We tried the mosques, but it wouldn't all fit, and the basements of the hospitals are already in use as command centers. This is difficult stuff! There are only so many places where we can can store this that are close to both children and camera-ready Hamas crew!

Why don't you Israelis try setting up an effective human-shield regime that can get a camera on-site in 20 seconds or less? Once you see how hard it is to set up the deaths of the remaining children we haven't killed over the years making tunnels, maybe you'll stop all the armchair criticism!"

A UN aid agency for Palestinian refugees said Tuesday that a stockpile of Hamas rockets was found in one of UNRWA’s Gaza schools — for the third time since the onset of Operation Protective Edge.

The incident, however, was not publicized by UNRWA on its website or official Twitter feed, or that of its spokesperson.

In its press release, UNRWA’s spokesperson said that the discovery was made during a routine inspection of the school, “which was closed for the summer and not being used as a shelter.”

“All the relevant parties have been notified,” UNRWA said, without elaborating which parties. Hamas, the terror group that controls the Gaza Strip, has launched over 2,000 of rockets at Israel in the past month.

“We condemn the group or groups who endangered civilians by placing these munitions in our school,” said UNRWA Spokesperson, Chris Gunness. “This is yet another flagrant violation of the neutrality of our premises. We call on all the warring parties to respect the inviolability of UN property.”

Despite announcing the discovery, UNRWA could not send a UN munitions expert to disarm and remove the weapons “because of fighting in the vicinity,” it said in a statement. “But we hope to do as soon as the security conditions allow.”

It was not clear from the statement where the school was, how many rockets Hamas or one of the other Palestinian terror groups stored at the UN facility, or where the weapons are now.

Tuesday’s incident was the third instance in which Palestinian armaments were found in UN facilities in the Gaza Strip. On July 22, the UN agency found rockets stockpiled in another school which “is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate 1,500 internally displaced persons.”

A week before that, UNRWA found some 20 rockets in a school under its auspices, also during a standard inspection. A spokesperson for UNRWA said the organization gave the rockets to “local authorities,” which answer to the Hamas-backed unity government led by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. “According to longstanding UN practice in UN humanitarian operations worldwide, incidents involving unexploded ordnance that could endanger beneficiaries and staff are referred to the local authorities,” Gunness told The Times of Israel.

In Jerusalem, officials charged that the weaponry was returned to Hamas. “The rockets were passed on to the government authorities in Gaza, which is Hamas. In other words, UNRWA handed to Hamas rockets that could well be shot at Israel,” a senior Israeli official told The Times of Israel.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

jetpossum-readers@yahoo.com
Note: If emailing, do not remove the slashes that appear in the subject line as
otherwise, to avoid spam, your email will be heartlessly auto-deleted. You can
add a subject before or after the slashes.

Over the years I have occasionally expressed doubts over the tenets of
evolutionism which, perhaps wrongly, has seemed to me a sort of political
correctness of science, or maybe a metaphysics somewhat related to science. As a
consequence I have been severely reprehended. The editor of a site devoted to
genetic expression furiously began deleting any mention of me from his readers.
Others, to include Mr. John Derbyshire of Taki's Magazine, have expressed
disdain, though disdaining to explain just why.

In all of this, my inability to get straight answers that do not shift has
frustrated me. I decided to address my questions to an expert in the field,
preferably one who loathed me and thus might produce his best arguments so as to
stick it to me. To this end I have settled on Mr. Derbyshire.

He has the several advantages of being highly intelligent, an excellent writer,
ardent of all things evolutionary and genetic, and well versed in them. I would
profit by his instruction in things in which I am only an amateur-should he be
so inclined. (He may well have other things to do.) To this end, I submit a few
questions which have strained my admittedly paltry understanding for some time.
They are not new questions, but could use answers. I agree in advance to accept
his answers (if any be given) as canonical.

(1) In evolutionary principle, traits that lead to more surviving children
proliferate. In practice, when people learn how to have fewer or no children,
they do. Whole industries exist to provide condoms, diaphragms, IUDs,
vasectomies, and abortions, attesting to great enthusiasm for non-reproduction.
Many advanced countries are declining in population. How does having fewer
surviving children lead to having more surviving children? Less cutely, what
selective pressures lead to a desire not to reproduce, and how does this fit
into a Darwinian framework?

Two notes: (1) The answer cannot rely on contraception, which is not a force
imposed from outside. Just as people invented spears because they wanted to kill
food and each other, they invented condoms because they wanted not to have
children. The question is how that desire evolved. (2) The non-evolutionary
explanation is clear and simple. "We could have two children and a nice condo,
or fifteen and live in a shack."

(2) Morality. In evolution as I understand it, there are no absolute moral
values: Morals evolved as traits allowing social cooperation, conducing to the
survival of the group and therefore to the production of more surviving
children. The philosophical case for this absence of absolutes usually consists
in pointing out that in various societies everything currently regarded as
immoral has been accepted as acceptable (e.g., burning heretics to death).

I cannot refute the argument. However, I thnk it intellectually disreputable to
posit premises and then not accept their consequences.

Question: Why should I not indulge my hobby of torturing to death the severely
genetically retarded? This would seem beneficial. We certainly don't want them
to reproduce, they use resources better invested in healthy children, and it
makes no evolutionary difference whether they die quietly or screaming.

(3) Abiogenesis. This is not going to be a fair question as there is no way
anyone can know the answer, but I pose it anyway. The theory, which I cannot
refute, is that a living, metabolizing, reproducing gadget formed accidentally
in the ancient seas. Perhaps it did. I wasn't there. It seems to me, though,
that the more complex one postulates the First Critter to have been, the less
likely, probably exponentially so, it would have been to form. The less complex
one postulates it to have been, the harder to explain why biochemistry, which
these days is highly sophisticated, cannot reproduce the event. Question: How
many years would have to pass without replication of the event, if indeed it be
not replicated, before one might begin to suspect that it didn't happen? For all
I know, it may be accomplished tomorrow. But the check cannot be in the mail
forever.

(4) You can't get there from here. Straight-line evolution, for example in which
Eohippus gradually gets larger until it reaches Clydesdale, is plausible because
each intervening step is a viable animal. In fact this is just selective
breeding. Yet many evolutionary transformations seem to require intermediate
stages that could not survive.

For example there are two-cycle bugs (insects, arachnids) that lay eggs that
hatch into tiny replicas of the adults, which grow, lay eggs, and repeat the
cycle. The four-cycle bugs go through egg, larva, pupa, adult. Question: What
are the viable steps needed to evolve from one to the other? Or from anything to
four-cycle?

Here I am baffled. As best I can see, the eggs of the two-cycler would have to
evolve toward being caterpillars, which are enormously different structurally
and otherwise from adults. Goodbye legs, chitinous exoskeleton; head, thorax,
and abdomen, on and on. Whatever the first mutation toward this end, the
resulting newly-hatched mutant would have to be viable-able to live and
reproduce until the next mutation occurred.

It is difficult to see how the evolution from insect to caterpillar could occur
at all, or why. But if it did, it would lead to a free-standing race of
caterpillars, a new species, necessarily being able to reproduce. Then, for
reasons mysterious to me, these would have to decide to pupate and become
butterflies. Metamorphosis from caterpillar to butterfly is enormously complex
and if you don't get it right the first time, it's curtains. Where would it have
gotten the impossibly complex genetic blueprint of the butterfly?

Among intellectual loin-cloth-wearers like me, there seems no answer. I do not
doubt that Mr. Derbyshire can provide one. Upon receiving same, I promise to
shut up.

(5) You can't get anywhere else from here. Mr. Derbyshire believes strongly in
genetic determinism-that we are what we are and behave as we do because of
genetic programming. I see no flaw in this. From the baby's suckling through
walking and talking, the adolescent's omniscience, making love and war, and
cooling off with age things seem undeniably genetic.

Behavior less obviously biological also seems built-in. Political orientation,
for example. Note that conservatives usually see the world as dangerous and
life as struggle; to have intense loyalty to the pack (patriotism), to reverence
the military, to feel empathy for members of their tribe (our fallen heroes,
etc.) and none at all for enemy dead; to favor capitalism; and to be hostile to
or disdainful of other racial and ethnic groups. That these traits tend strongly
to appear together though they are logically independent suggests a genetic
basis.

In his book, We Are Doomed, Mr. Derbyshire describes the brain, correctly as far
as I can tell, as an electrochemical mechanism, and somewhat delicately hints at
chemical determinism in that organ. I see no way of avoiding this conclusion.

But again, does one not have to accept the consequences of one's suppositions? A
physical (to include chemical) system cannot make decisions. All subsequent
states of a physical system are determined by the initial state. So, if one
accepts the electrochemical premise (which, again, seems to be correct) it
follows that we do not believe things because they are true, but because we are
predestined to believe them. Question: Does not genetic determinism (with which
I have no disagreement) lead toa paradox: that the thoughts we think we are
thinking we only think to be thoughts when they are really utterly predetermined
by the inexorable working of physics and chemistry?

(That was fun. I recall Samuel Johnson's remark on the existence of free will:
All theory is against it, but all experience is for it.)

(6) The evolutionary noise level. In principle, traits spread through a
population because they lead to the having of greater numbers of children.
Consider the epicanthic fold, the flap that makes the eyes of East Asians seem
slanted. In evolutionary writings this is often described as an adaptation
either to save energy or to protect the eyes from icy winds. We will here assume
that actual studies have shown that it actually does so.

I do not understand how the fold evolved.

Unless it results from a point mutation, (and I do not think it does), it must
have evolved gradually. This means, does it not, that even a partial fold
conferred so great an advantage in survival that the possessor had more children
than their unfolded relatives.

Being as I am untutored in these matters, the idea seems ludicrous. Did the eyes
of the unfolded freeze, leaving the Folded One to get all the girls? Did the
folded conserve so much energy that they could copulate more vigorously?

While grounds can doubtless be found for dismissing the example of the
epicanthic fold, countless instances exist of traits that become universal or
nearly so while lacking any plausible connection to greater fecundity.

Here I sink into a veritable La Brea of incomprehension. Genes already exist in
populations for extraordinary superiority of many sorts-for the intelligence of
Stephen Hawking, the body of Mohammed Ali, for 20/5 vision, for the astonishing
endurance in running of the Tarahumara Indians, and so on. To my unschooled
understanding, these traits offer clear and substantial advantage in survival
and reproduction, yet they do not become universal, or even common. The
epicanthic fold does. Question: Why do seemingly trivial traits proliferate
while clearly important ones do not?

(7) The universality of the unnecessary. Looking at the human body, I see many
things that appear to have no relation to survival or more vigorous
reproduction, and that indeed work against it, yet are universal in the species.
For example, the kidneys contain the nervous tissue that makes kidney stones
agonizingly painful, yet until recently the victim has been able to do nothing
about them. Migraine headaches are paralyzing, and would appear to convey little
advantage in having more children. ("No, honey, I have a violent headache..")
Sensing pain clearly has evolutionary advantages. If you fall on your head, it
hurts, so you are careful not to, and thus survive and have more children
(though frankly I have sometimes thought that it might be better to fall on
one's head). Wounds are painful, so you baby them, letting them heal. But,
Question: What is the reproductive advantage of crippling pain (migraines can be
crippling) about which pre-recently, the sufferer could do nothing?

(8) Finally, the supernatural. Unfairly, as it turned out, in regard to religion
I had expected Mr. Derbyshire to strike the standard "Look at me, I'm an
atheist, how advanced I am" pose. I was wrong. In fact he says that he believes
in a God. (Asked directly, he responded, "Yes, to my own satisfaction, though
not necessarily to yours.") His views are reasoned, intellectually modest, and,
though I am not a believer, I see nothing with which to quarrel, though for
present purposes this is neither here nor there. Question: If one believes in or
suspects the existence of God or gods, how does one exclude the possibility that
He, She, or It meddles in the universe-directing evolution, for example?

A belief in gods would seem to leave the door open to Intelligent Design, the
belief that the intricacies of life came about not by accident but were crafted
by Somebody or Something. The view, anathema in evolutionary circle, is usually
regarded as emanating from Christianity, and usually does.

Though this column is not about me or my beliefs, to head off a lot of email let
me say that I am not remotely a Christian but a thoroughgoing agnostic, more so
it seems than Mr. Derbyshire, and my suspicions regarding Intelligent
Design-suspicions is all they are-are not deductions from Christianity but
inferences from observation. To my eye, the damned place looks designed. By
what, I am clueless.

To close, I ask these questions in a spirit of inquiry, not of ideological
warfare. Mr. Derbyshire is far deeper in these matters than I, who can barely
distinguish a phosphodiester bond from a single-nucleotide polymorphism. All I
seek are clear, straightforward, unambiguous answers devoid of the evasion I
have so often encountered. I do not doubt that he can help me if so inclined.

She walked through her running tests and got winded climbing stairs, yet a physically unfit female FDNY probie was still allowed out in the field like a normal graduate — and given a year to pass, The Post has learned.

“She’s literally the most pathetic specimen of physical fitness I’ve ever seen,” fumed an academy classmate of Choeurlyne Doirin, 39, who was given a uniform and a “light-duty” assignment even though she did not graduate on June 2 with the other 286 cadets.

Prospective firefighters are required to complete a grueling 18 weeks of academy training that includes being able to run 1¹/₂ miles in 12 minutes without gear.

But the over-the-hill Doirin failed to meet the required time, taking more than 18 minutes to huff-and-puff her way across the finish line.

“She started walking halfway through the run,” the source said. “She couldn’t even make it up the stairs to the locker rooms without taking a break.”

Doirin, a former EMT and mother of two, said her age and physical fitness had nothing to do with her abysmal performance — claiming she had been hampered by an injury she received during training.

“I was injured toward the end of the class during training,” Doirin said when reached at FDNY headquarters. “They put me on light duty until I was able to try again.

“If the rigorous training causes you to be injured, I would guess they would allow you to heal first.”

She would not say what type of injury she sustained.

Doirin said she was one of several candidates — both male and female — whose ailments prevented them from completing the course, and who were still brought aboard and given light-duty jobs.

FDNY spokesman Frank Dwyer said, “The probationary firefighter in question suffered an on-the-job injury and is currently assigned to an administrative light-duty position, which is standard FDNY protocol.”

“It’s a scam,” said a veteran FDNY source with knowledge of the admission process. “You’re getting full pay and benefits and all this extra time to prepare either physically or academically for the next test.

The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody had decided not to see – Ayn Rand

Many Americans believe that the US Government, the Democrat and Republican Parties, and the media are deliberately misleading the American people, hiding the most heinous fraud and Constitutional crisis in the history of the United States.

Individuals at the highest levels of the federal government may have aided and abetted a deception, which included willful ignorance, misinformation, false interpretations of the Constitution, outright lies, and the creation of fraudulent documents and computer records to protect an ineligible, ill-prepared ,and unworthy candidate for the office of President of the United States.

In the age of Obama, we have witnessed the complete metamorphosis of the media, no longer objective journalists but partisan liberal activists who control, manipulate, and even create news to support a left-wing political agenda.

On April 27, 2011, Barack Obama presented as his official birth certificate a digital image so riddled with anomalies that only counterfeiters or the complicit could vouch for its authenticity.

Evidence has been reported claiming that Barack Obama has been using a fraudulent Connecticut Social Security Number (SSN) since at least 1986. That number, 042-68-4425, issued in 1977, was set aside exclusively for Connecticut residents, a state in which he never lived nor did any member of his immediate family. In addition, SSN Verifier Plus showed the birth year 1890 linked to that number. Because SSNs are not re-issued, multiple birth dates for one card suggest a stolen number.

The data and documents associated with Obama’s Selective Service registration also contain inconsistencies. Most noticeably, Obama’s registration card has a two digit year ‘80″ on the postal stamp, unlike the four digit year stamp “1980″ found on all other registration cards completed at the same time in Hawaii and other states. It appears that a 2008 postal stamp was cut, the 08 inverted and reinserted into the stamp to mimic a 1980 registration. Interestingly, Obama’s SSN 042-68-4425 appears on his 1980 Selective Service registration, which is six years before that number can be found in personal background databases.

I believe that Barack Obama did not register with the Selective Service in 1980 because he was attending Occidental College with a foreign student status and in 1981 traveled to Pakistan using an Indonesian passport. According to the law, failure to register with the Selective Service would forever prevent Obama from working in the executive branch of the US government.

One could readily conclude that Obama lied and flouted the law to get elected. It should come as no surprise then, that he would lie and flout the law to implement his policies.

I believe Obama succeeded in 2008 because the Republicans struck a deal with the Democrats not to question Obama’s eligibility for office and his personal history. Furthermore, the liberal media took radical steps to protect their favored candidate, killing negative stories about Obama and even threatening to accuse his opponents of racism in order to make them “sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.”

In addition to the apparent creation of fraudulent documents and the doctoring of computer records by Obama supporters, then- Democratic National Chair Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) prepared two different Certifications of Nomination, an action unprecedented in US history, presumably to hide Obama’s ineligibility for office.

And so committed has the liberal media been to protect their investment in Obama, they continue to dispense with gusto misinformation, disinformation, or no information.

The conspiracy of silence continues out of complicity or fear. The political-media establishment realizes that if the truth is told about Barack Obama, the system from which they accrue enormous personal power and profit will collapse.

Republicans will oppose Obama; but they will not expose him because by doing so, it will reveal their own dereliction of duty. Many believe, and with reasonable cause, that all the hearings and lawsuits conducted by the Republicans are a subterfuge meant to run out the clock.

It doesn’t matter if Obama thinks he is right or if he thinks he is being virtuous. The policies he is pursuing are destroying the country. Even if one rejects treachery or treason as motives, the unrealistic and impractical far-left liberalism promoted by Obama and his acolytes is an inevitable march from altruistic dreams to coercion, oppression, and, ultimately, failure.

You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality – Ayn Rand

With ever greater frequency, I’ll read an article on immigration policy at some other Webzine, with another author’s name on it, and think to meself, “Did Peter or one of my VDARE colleagues ghostwriter this?”

Some of you are surely wondering if Gov. Palin is gearing up for a presidential run in 2016. At present, she is certainly the most popular GOP politician by far, and that is because she's showing leadership, she's pretty, and millions of American patriots decided already in 2008, "She's one of us." Personally, I prefer Sen. Jeff Sessions, but I'm learning to like Palin more each day. But if we don't topple the tyrant, there won't be any election.

Vicki Weaver, about one hour before FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi murdered her, on August 21, 1992, at Ruby Ridge, and shot her husband, Randy, in the back. Horiuchi killed Mrs. Weaver, while she was holding her 10-month-old infant in her arms. Horiuchi was charged with manslaughter, but a judge threw out the charges.

AP reporter Tom Hays has won the Duranty-Blair Award for Journalistic Infamy, for his 2004 “Boosgate” hoax. Hays is the fifth Duranty-Blair laureate. The previous four were CBS News producer Mary Mapes in 2004; seven reporters and editors at the New Orleans Times-Picayune in 2006; ABC News reporter Brian Ross in 2012; and Peter Berger, of The American Interest, in 2013.

On September 3, 2004, during the presidential campaign pitting Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry (MA) against incumbent Republican President George W. Bush, Bush gave a speech in Madison, Wisconsin. During the speech, President Bush announced that Democratic President Bill Clinton was suffering chest pains, and might need coronary bypass surgery, and led the Christian crowd in prayer. Tom Hays fabricated an incident, in which the crowd of thousands booed President Clinton, so as to make Republicans sound as heartless and sadistic as Hays and his Marxist comrades.

Hays’ bosses at AP supported him, and did not punish him in any way, much less fire him, presumably because they were as rabidly Democrat as he was.

Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wisconsin, booed. Bush did nothing to stop them….

As I wrote at the time,

In fact, however, the crowd had responded with respectful applause.

The false story was immediately caught and reported to conservative talk radio shows and blogs. Less than one hour after the story first went out on the wire, under the byline of AP reporter Tom Hays, it was retracted, corrected, and the original link killed. The new title was "Bush offers best wishes for Clinton's recovery." There was no mention of the changes; however, the later version without the "boos" run by the New York Times-owned Boston Globe still carried the title "audience boos as bush offers best wishes for clintons recovery" in its URL….
At press time, AP corporate communications had not responded to telephone and e-mail requests for comment from this reporter on Sunday night, reporter Tom Hays had not responded to a Sunday night e-mail seeking comment, and no message was posted regarding the false story at the AP Web site.

Knight-Ridder’s Web site also did not refer to the story.
Tom Curley is AP’s president and CEO. (AP Corporate Communications: E-mail: info@ap.org ; tel.: 212-621-6060.)

I wrote two reports on Hays’ hoax:
“AP Reporter Invents Anti-Clinton ‘Boos’ at Wisconsin Bush Rally”; and

The Boosgate Hoax was one of a string of dirty tricks pulled by Democratic operatives passing themselves off as journalists, and trying to steal the presidential election for Marxist John Kerry. Two other episodes that I covered were CBS News producer Mary Mapes’ Memogate Hoax, in which tried to cost President Bush the election by using fraudulent documents claiming he had been AWOL while a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and the media/DNC plan to steal the election on election night, in a repeat of 2000. (For 2000, see here, here, here,here, here, here and here). John Kerry himself put a stop to that criminal conspiracy. (So, the old communist ain’t all bad.) The day after the election, Katie Couric and some of her comrades sought to cause another constitutional crisis, by asserting that because the election was so close, President Bush didn’t have a “mandate.” Of course, they never would have made such a ridiculous and seditious claim, had Kerry won such a close election.

During the 2000 post-election siege of the White House, Democrats had made it clear to the nation that for them, “It ain’t over, til the Democrat wins.”

The Duranty-Blair Award recognizes those journalists whose work embodies the spirit of Walter Duranty and Jayson Blair, two of the most notorious journalists in the history of the Fourth Estate. It is no accident that both men worked for the New York Times.

Walter Duranty wrote a series of early 1930s dispatches from the Soviet Union, where he was Times Moscow bureau chief, in which he lied about the Ukrainian Holocaust, in which Stalin deliberately starved millions of Kulaks (peasants) to death, through a man-made famine. Instead of reporting the truth, Duranty reported that the peasants were happy and well-fed, and was rewarded for his lies with a Pulitzer Prize.

Jayson Blair (here, here, and here) was an early 2000s black affirmative action hire who alternately plagiarized reporters at other newspapers, and fabricated articles out of whole cloth, all for stories set hundreds and even thousands of miles away, while he sat in New York City cafés.

This was during a speech Dr. Hatfill gave during August 2002, in which he took the offensive against AG John Ashcroft. The blown-up photograph is of his girlfriend's home, which the FBI had trashed in a "search." The FBI and the media were, in my opinion, trying to drive Hatfill to commit suicide.

By Nicholas Stix

I just looked for my reports on the attempted railroading by the Bush/Ashcroft DOJ and the media of patriot-scientist Dr. Steven J. Hatfill for the five anthrax letter murders in fall of 2002 through my blog, and came up with only one out of at least 12 articles. (I also gave a talk on a panel with Hatfill, his friend and spokesman, Pat Clawson, and anthrax sleuth/conspiracy theorist, Ken Dillon, at an Accuracy in Media conference in October, 2002, but have yet to post it online, and don’t know where the heck it is.) I was able to come up with nine more articles through the one that came up internally, but that leaves two more I have to find.

Dr. Hatfill's two chief public tormentors were U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (press conference, October 21, 2002), and...

I have had several similar such experiences of late. The internal search function within my blog has become worthless for items posted more than three years ago. I have to go to Google to find stuff on my own blog! And sometimes Google fails, as well, for really old material. You have to periodically re-post blog material, at least at Google's blogs.

Much of this stuff was once linked at Wikipedia, but of course the Wikicensors eventually sent it all down the memory hole.

Barbara Hatch Rosenberg, a tenured, communist activist. The picture on the left, from Hermes Press, is either of the wrong person, or is a good 40 years old, even though they used it during the early 2000s. The picture on the right is from around the time Rosenberg was trying to railroad Dr. Hatfill.

I am re-posting this score, without first listening to it at Youtube, following warnings that the track is larded there with commercials. This is increasingly a problem with YT, but so far, the commercials don’t play on blogs. I can only wish that were the case with news videos!

I thank the reader who responded to my July 21 Jerry Goldsmith Memorial Concert five days ago by recommending this score, which he believes rises to the level of the greatest 20th century orchestral composers, in particular, the theme, “Spock’s Arrival.”

About Me

I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.

$ $ $

The response so far to WEJB/NSU’s ongoing fundraiser has been very heartening, but we need tens of thousands of dollars more, in order to tide us over for 2012! If you have given, I thank you. If not, please consider making a donation.